Passage : So they say games can't be art?

#51
border said:
Other than that, it's terrifyily dull stuff that's more entertaining in concept than execution (which I guess is often a characteristic of high concept art).
This.

Mr. Lemming said:
I didn't even realize you could go south until I read the designer's notes.
This too.

border said:
The game's observations are probably pedestrian by the standards of other artforms -- "The future is hazy.....companions can slow you down....treasures you accumulate mean nothing at death".
Yep.

Ynos Yrros said:
What a boring experience.
Also this.

Branduil said:
The gameplay sucks.
And this.

MGrant said:
Painfully trite and boring
And this.

lyre said:
Just got to about 800 points, lost interest and deleted it.

1: The game is boring.
2: Games are not art.
3: Since this topic has been done to death, bury it already.
4: The game sucks.
5: I would ask for my 5 minutes back but since I played this 'game' with my toes while I was actually focusing on making my new characters not suck in Etrian Odyssey (which has more emotional impact than this game btw), you're off the hook for now.
6: Buy Etrian Odyssey you assholes!
And most of this.

Music was good though.
 
#52
Campster said:
See, I was trying to be civil, but you had to invoke fighting words.

Your post is 33% opinion, 33% undefended blanket statement, and 33% baseless vitriol that makes you come off more sad than hip and more desperate than insightful.
I can be civil but I won't. I already went through this debate when Ocarina of Time and Final Fantasy 7 were 'art', when ICO was 'art', and quite frankly, it's tiring. No matter how vocal you make yourselves out to be, games will not be art; never was, never will be. And no matter how many small 'art' games that somehow manage themselves play halfway decent to moderately decent, in the end, games are not art.

Unless of course you consider watching or playing football can be the same type of 'art' as this (linked due to size).
 
#54
I loved when the girl died... and I was moving like.. ok, I'm next. Is it now? No.. now? no... and kept moving waiting for my time to come, knowing it'll be pretty soon. It felt extremly lonely and sad. Just how I imagine I'll be in my oldies.

Great experience :)
 

Campster

Do you like my tight white sweater? STOP STARING
#55
BrodiemanTTR said:
An obnoxious series of quotes that adds nothing to the conversation other than to highlight a plague of ignorance and anti-intellectualism
Thanks for contributing!

lyre said:
I can be civil but I won't. I already went through this debate when Ocarina of Time and Final Fantasy 7 were 'art', when ICO was 'art', and quite frankly, it's tiring. No matter how vocal you make yourselves out to be, games will not be art; never was, never will be. And no matter how many small 'art' games that somehow manage themselves play halfway decent to moderately decent, in the end, games are not art.

Unless of course you consider watching or playing football can be the same type of 'art' as this (linked due to size).
So you're essentially just refusing to engage in the discourse? You've yet to provide any reasoning or rationale behind your assertion that games are unequivocally not art other than your say so.
 
#56
We should completely forget the question "Are games art?"

There is a more important question, and that is "are the vast majority of vocal gamers too immature to discuss whether games are art?"

As long as the answer is "yes", which it most decidedly is, then there can be no reasonable debate.

(not that many people here are interested in reasonable debate)
 
#57
Campster said:
Thanks for contributing!



So you're essentially just refusing to engage in the discourse? You've yet to provide any reasoning or rationale behind your assertion that games are unequivocally not art other than your say so.
/me turns my head from my peons to the moniter
/me types this response
/me goes back to my peons
 
#60
This kind of reminds me of The Marriage, which is also worth a look if you like the idea of game rules as a means of expression.

As for the "debate"... Obviously games can be beautiful aesthetically, and there is plenty of room for personal expression in the design of a game system or rule set. However, games tend to be a poor medium for storytelling for the reasons outlined by Ebert, and the vast majority of games are produced as entertainment products. Whether or not that makes them art depends on how you define the word, which will probably be skewed based on which side of the line you want games to fall on.
 
#64
sp0rsk said:
Guys, art doesn't have to be entertaining or even fun.
This is why discussions like this need to die. Not because the debate is tired and old, but because some people just fucking refuse to get it.

Passage is a beautiful little work of art made in a couple of weeks for an exhibition that had rules stating that the game had to be immediately playable as well as beatable in 5 minutes or less. People in this thread whining about how the mechanics aren't deep enough or whatever the fuck really need to shut up.
 
#65
Campster said:
Thanks for contributing!
I'm sorry this game is a boring and mostly unremarkable take on a trite and overdone topic that's being lifted on the shoulders of wannabe intellectuals. Seems I've struck a nerve. Here, let me contribute for reals:

Hey guys, yesterday I was young. But now I'm older. I don't know what the future will hold. At the same time I can't cling to the past. The march of passing time drives us ever onward into the unknown. Oh yeah, then I die.

Art!

Also as a game this really is garbage.
 
#69
BrodiemanTTR said:
At the same time I can't cling to the past. The march of passing time drives us ever onward into the unknown.
This right here is a good summation of how easy and foolishly you can ignore any possible meaning this game might bring forth.

Remember how a game, art or not, generally works: you are given a choice in your actions.
 
#70
aku:jiki said:
Passage is a beautiful little work of art made in a couple of weeks for an exhibition that had rules stating that the game had to be immediately playable as well as beatable in 5 minutes or less. People in this thread whining about how the mechanics aren't deep enough or whatever the fuck really need to shut up.
.
 
#71
aku:jiki said:
This
Passage is a beautiful little work of art made in a couple of weeks for an exhibition that had rules stating that the game had to be immediately playable as well as beatable in 5 minutes or less. People in this thread whining about how the mechanics aren't deep enough or whatever the fuck really need to shut up.
 
#72
Games contain art. Art is merely an aspect of games, and thus games are far superior to art.

Alternatively, art can be defined as something created by someone who calls them self an artist. Therefore games created by artists are art, whereas games created by programmers are not. Unless those programmers can make programmer art in MSpaint.

Passage is an interesting game, and it contains art. However it is not itself art, as it was clearly created by a programmer, not an artist.

Many programmers consider programming to be an artform. However they are wrong. Programming is just programming.

Ballet, although often classed as one of the 'arts' is in fact not art. It is a complete waste of everyone's time and money.
 

DDayton

(more a nerd than a geek)
#75
Okay, that was a cute little idea. I went southeast at the start and never met the wife, so I spent the entire time going "Gee, when do I meet the woman... hmm... getting rather old".

It's a cute little idea, but more of a simple "gag" (to steal from the magic/effects folks) than anything else. Sort of a neat thing to show to someone else once, just for the weirdness of it.
 
#76
DavidDayton said:
Okay, that was a cute little idea. I went southeast at the start and never met the wife, so I spent the entire time going "Gee, when do I meet the woman... hmm... getting rather old".

It's a cute little idea, but more of a simple "gag" (to steal from the magic/effects folks) than anything else. Sort of a neat thing to show to someone else once, just for the weirdness of it.
I just held right the entire time. I tried going up once and it didn't work, and I tried going down but I was holding right also, which overrides it. So I just held right for 4 or 5 minutes or whatever until it ended. It was stupid.

I read the instructions and then started to play again, seeing I could move down and more importantly switch to windowed mode. I quit after 20-30 seconds.
 

DDayton

(more a nerd than a geek)
#77
usea said:
I just held right the entire time. I tried going up once and it didn't work, and I tried going down but I was holding right also, which overrides it. So I just held right for 4 or 5 minutes or whatever until it ended. It was stupid.

I read the instructions and then started to play again, seeing I could move down and more importantly switch to windowed mode. I quit after 20-30 seconds.
It's not fun, but it's an interesting little gimmick. It works as a "what's this weird little thing... what's going on... how do I do... oh, wait, I died -- I get it now!" kind of thing.
 
#78
The backlash in this thread is similar to the abstract art debate, or "any kid could scribble that with crayons" when they are looking at a Pollock.
 
#79
golduck342 said:
You can skip out on meeting the girl by looking for treasures.
The girl stops you from reaching certain treasures if you do meet her.

whoa...
There was a girl? I played this morning and completely missed her looking for treasure. Then I died. Sounds like life alright.
 
#80
its so sad to see idiots trying to make sense of art.
you know, not go out and make myself look like a giant elitist asshole, but many, MANY of you simply do not have the qualifications to hold a discussion about art, or god forbids, a debate!

many of you simply arent qualified enough to make sense of art just like im not qualified enough to form an opinion about...marine biology, or quantum physics...shit i know next to nothing about.

its kind of sad.
ive studied art for years.
ive produced art for years.
with about every single medium imaginable.
and i can safely tell you that passage is definitly a work of art.
it meets all the criterias and then some.
jason rohrer is many things, one of them is an artist. because he made art.
what qualifies as art ISNT subjective. you, as the illiterate internet idiot dont just get to decide what is or isnt art.
art is in the intention. and jason most definitly set out to make art.
and he did.
end of story.
 
#81
aku:jiki said:
This is why discussions like this need to die. Not because the debate is tired and old, but because some people just fucking refuse to get it.
The biggest problem we have in discussing this is the inherent category error we make when we describe the medium as "video games". The medium we're actually discussing is interactive computer art, of which videogames are a subset. Comics have the same problem, in that the actual medium is serial art, of which comic books are a subset, and super hero comics an even further subset.

In both cases the most mainstream of the medium is being used to determine if the medium is artistic, as if we were using John Grisham to determine if the novel was an artistic medium. It's a boondoggle allowing everyone with a cultural axe to grind to take a shot.
 
#83
One wonders what the naysayers in this thread do consider art, and how often (and how deeply) they actually partake of it.

This isn't really fun and is terrible as a game, but it's pretty clearly art. (IMO, it's touching, and pretty effective at accessing my moral center.) If you want to attack the shallowness of its insights or interactive media's ability to support any art, please provide examples of the art that moves you so that the rest of us can tee off on it or attack its medium's legitimacy as an artform. Thanks!
 
#84
lyre said:
Just got to about 800 points, lost interest and deleted it.

1: The game is boring.
2: Games are not art.
3: Since this topic has been done to death, bury it already.
4: The game sucks.
5: I would ask for my 5 minutes back but since I played this 'game' with my toes while I was actually focusing on making my new characters not suck in Etrian Odyssey (which has more emotional impact than this game btw), you're off the hook for now.
6: Buy Etrian Odyssey you assholes!
how do you get 800 points?

i did 704!
 
#86
many of you simply arent qualified enough to make sense of art just like im not qualified enough to form an opinion about...marine biology, or quantum physics...shit i know next to nothing about.
art is subjective. you, as the illiterate internet idiot dont just get to decide what is or isnt art.

That's the problem...you say others are unqualified to comment on it (and I agree there are some serious meat heads in the gaming world *ahem* ), but as you also point out, it is subjective. so, nonetheless, they get to decide for themselves on their level. but then they overstep the bounds and try and tell everyone their subjective opinions are correct...and misinterpret their formation of an opinion as a solid foundation from which to decide what is and isn't art.
 
#90
Mamesj said:
That's the problem...you say others are unqualified to comment on it (and I agree there are some serious meat heads in the gaming world *ahem* ), but as you also point out, it is subjective. so, nonetheless, they get to decide for themselves on their level. but then they overstep the bounds and try and tell everyone their subjective opinions are correct...and misinterpret their formation of an opinion as a solid foundation from which to decide what is and isn't art.
fixed.
 

sprsk

force push the doodoo rock
#91
phil_fish said:
its so sad to see idiots trying to make sense of art.
you know, not go out and make myself look like a giant elitist asshole, but many, MANY of you simply do not have the qualifications to hold a discussion about art, or god forbids, a debate!

many of you simply arent qualified enough to make sense of art just like im not qualified enough to form an opinion about...marine biology, or quantum physics...shit i know next to nothing about.

its kind of sad.
ive studied art for years.
ive produced art for years.
with about every single medium imaginable.
and i can safely tell you that passage is definitly a work of art.
it meets all the criterias and then some.
jason rohrer is many things, one of them is an artist. because he made art.
what qualifies as art ISNT subjective. you, as the illiterate internet idiot dont just get to decide what is or isnt art.
art is in the intention. and jason most definitly set out to make art.
and he did.
end of story.

Shut the fuck up. No one tells me what art is, hippie!! So what you got a degree? I got big balls! You don't have balls this big.


P.S. I can't stress enough, no matter how hard you try, 99% of the internet is totally brain dead when it comes to art and trying to educate anyone on the subject is an exercise in futility.
 
#94
phil_fish said:

wait...what'd you fix? I need some bold here, it's too early in the morning :lol


well you sure do sound like an elitist asshole...by chance are you also a liberal?

you know, I have the humility to accept when I don't understand other subjects. For some weird reason, people who don't understand art always have to throw out the words "elitist" or "pretentious." I think it's because art appears to be something super easy to understand. but is it really elitism when people are able to discuss something that you can't discuss on their level? When there are programmers or journalists on gaf discussing games at their level or correcting people's view on a game, does that make them elitist? No. I wouldn't accuse my friends in engineering or psychology of being elitist for discussing the stuff they are working on. and if I tried to talk like I knew anything about the stuff they are into, then they told me my assumptions about their subject were shit, I wouldn't exactly be in a place to call them elitist, would I? Nope. So why would it be any different for art.


and I'm not liberal. I'm part of the Conservative Consortium for the Resurrection of Adam Weishaupt.
 
#95
Mamesj said:
wait...what'd you fix? I need some bold here, it's too early in the morning :lol





you know, I have the humility to accept when I don't understand other subjects. For some weird reason, people who don't understand art always have to throw out the words "elitist" or "pretentious." I think it's because art appears to be something super easy to understand. but is it really elitism when people are able to discuss something that you can't discuss on their level? When there are programmers or journalists on gaf discussing games at their level or correcting people's view on a game, does that make them elitist? No. I wouldn't accuse my friends in engineering or psychology of being elitist for discussing the stuff they are working on. and if I tried to talk like I knew anything about the stuff they are into, then they told me my assumptions about their subject were shit, I wouldn't exactly be in a place to call them elitist, would I? Nope. So why would it be any different for art.


and I'm not liberal. I'm part of the Conservative Consortium for the Resurrection of Adam Weishaupt.
what qualifies as art ISNT subjective. you, as the illiterate internet idiot dont just get to decide what is or isnt art.
is what i changed. i wanted to say art ISNT subjective, and instead typed that it was. typical frenchie mistake.


and im no liberal.
im completely apolitical.
i want to go live in the woods.
 
#96
I think art is just realizing a creative vision. Unfortunately, most games either don't have one (they are just papering over something that's already been made dozens of times), or it is sacrificed for more "least common denominator" appeal. For example, Bioshock's original vision was butchered after focus testing indicated they would make more $ by making the game more of a generic FPS (see the post mortem in Game Developer magazine). And of course, in some cases, the creative vision just sucks and the result is poor art.
 
#97
Open Source said:
I think art is just realizing a creative vision. Unfortunately, most games either don't have one (they are just papering over something that's already been made dozens of times), or it is sacrificed for more "least common denominator" appeal. For example, Bioshock's original vision was butchered after focus testing indicated they would make more $ by making the game more of a generic FPS (see the post mortem in Game Developer magazine). And of course, in some cases, the creative vision just sucks and the result is poor art.
Yep, I agree.